Highly Anticipated Sci-Fi Movies That Bombed At The Box Office

So-called "Hollywood accounting" is a tricky business, one with a long history going back to the days of John Wayne. Studios love to shuffle their money around, playing around with their financial ledgers until some movies seem profitable, while others appear to put them in the red. When all is said and done, a movie's profitability — at least, as far as shareholders are concerned — may or may not have any correlation to the film's actual box office stats. Then there's the fact that profitability and box office stats don't necessarily have anything to do with a film's overall cultural impact; plenty of movies have garnered massive fanbases slowly over time, rather than raking in enough money by some deadline to appear as a positive line item on a studio's yearly report. Especially in the COVID-19 era, where massive-budget movies end up on streaming while they are still in theaters, it's tough to measure what films are actually impacting audiences.

This can be especially tricky for science fiction movies because the genre often requires a large budget to pull off special effects. Sci-fi movies face this uphill battle when seeking profitability, meaning that some surprising titles, no matter how popular or impactful, failed to hit that marker. Read on for a look back at 12 sci-fi movies that everyone seemed excited about until they bombed at the box office. (Oh, and one more thing for film fans to keep in mind when assessing a film's success: Financial impact often has nothing to do with a film's quality.)

Sci-fi fans had a lot of reasons to look forward to Luc Besson's "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets." After all, Besson is responsible for "The Fifth Element," a cult-classic sci-fi film, and "Valerian" represented his return to the genre after spending the intervening years making action movies. An adaptation of the long-running Belgian comic strip "Valerian and Laureline," the film was teased at San Diego Comic-Con more than a year before its release. Oh, and one more thing: The film also marked Rihanna's return to acting, playing a shape-shifting alien named Bubble. What's not to get excited about?

So confident in the film was Besson that he showed unfinished scenes to journalists long before the movie was ready. "Just enjoy it, remember everything is temp," he cautioned before the screening, according to Polygon. "I can't even watch it. But in five months it will be good," he promised.

Unfortunately, not even the power of the Rihanna Navy could make "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets" a hit. Marred by middling reviews – many of which pointed to model-turned-actor Cara Delevingne as a particular weakness — the film flopped at the box office. Vanity Fair noted, however, that the stars were forced to continue on the film's press tour, already knowing the film had bombed. Against a $209 million budget, the magazine noted, the sci-fi epic debuted with a mere $23 million worldwide. Yikes.

The announcement that "Selma" director Ava DuVernay would be adapting Madeleine L'Engle's beloved children's book "A Wrinkle In Time" brought much attention to the project. According to Vanity Fair, DuVernay's selection was historic; no Black woman had ever before directed a film with a budget over $100 million, so DuVernay would be the first. 

In building the film, DuVernay insisted on a diverse cast that included Reese Witherspoon and Oprah Winfrey, a move that sent anticipation levels skyrocketing. A cover story in Time praising the film's diversity was headlined "Why the 'A Wrinkle in Time' Movie Will Change Hollywood." No pressure, or anything. Even the American Library Association got in on the hype, reporting, "Librarians haven't seen this kind of advanced attention for a kidlit adaptation since the last 'Harry Potter' movie."

The movie was finally released in the winter of 2018, and ... it bombed. Despite everything the movie had going for it, audiences simply didn't turn up, perhaps scared off by less-than-stellar reviews. Deadline called it one of the "biggest box office bombs of 2018," noting that the film represented a loss of more than $130 million for Disney. Although "A Wrinkle in Time" is the first book in a series, no further films have been planned.

When "Solo: A Star Wars Story" was announced, sci-fi fans were excited to see a prequel centered on wisecracking ruffian Han Solo. The trades and various film sites breathlessly followed casting announcements to see who would play the younger version of the character made famous by Harrison Ford. According to The Hollywood Reporter, famous names such as Miles Teller, Taron Egerton, and Ansel Elgort were in contention for the part; it ultimately went to "Hail, Caesar!" breakout Alden Ehrenreich.

Unfortunately, the hype for the movie began to falter when there were much-publicized creative difficulties on set. Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were fired and replaced by Ron Howard, according to Variety, who noted that there were mere weeks left of shooting when the "Apollo 13" director stepped in to finish the film.

When "Solo" finally hit theaters, reviews were decent; the movie sits at 69% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. However, by that point — about six months after the controversial "The Last Jedi" evoked passionate backlash — audiences just didn't seem to care anymore. Box Office Mojo estimated that the film's budget had ballooned to $275 million, but "Solo" merely crawled to $213 million domestically ... a far cry from the haul that would have been necessary to turn a profit.

In 2012, the Wachowskis teamed with German director Tom Tykwer to adapt "Cloud Atlas," David Mitchell's critically-acclaimed novel. The book spans locations, genres, and centuries, telling stories set on a 19th-century slave ship and on a post-apocalyptic island, moving between contemporary London and the far-future Neo-Seoul. To craft the uncategorizable film, the directors assembled an all-star cast that included Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, and more, enlisting their actors to take on multiple roles across each story. (Regrettably, this led to some race-swapping ... never a great idea).

Before the movie's release, Warner Bros.' President of Domestic Distribution Dan Fellman hyped the film up while speaking with The Hollywood Reporter. "Audiences who have seen an early screening of 'Cloud Atlas' have been elated by its powerful and inspiring story, as well as its breathtaking visuals," he said, and the corresponding article noted that the film might be an awards player. Entertainment sites rushed to help viewers decode the film's multiple, enmeshed storylines and repeat cast members, positioning the movie as an event.

Then, "Cloud Atlas" was actually released, and it failed to connect. E! News reported that the sci-fi epic cost $100 million to make, but in its opening weekend, it only managed to scrounge up $9.6 million. "We'll see how it plays out," Fellman told the outlet, suggesting that the movie might have staying power. That doesn't seem to have been the case; according to Box Office Mojo, the movie topped out at $27 million domestically.

In the years after "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," the Marvel Cinematic Universe launched, dominating the box office. By the time 20th Century Fox rebooted the property in 2015 — before Disney bought Fox and thereby brought the Fantastic Four rights back to (Disney-owned) Marvel — fans were eager for a new take on the characters. The film was directed by "Chronicle" helmer Josh Trank, who cast Michael B. Jordan, Miles Teller, Kate Mara, and Jamie Bell as the super-powered team, in addition to tapping Toby Kebbel to play the villainous Dr. Doom.

The hype was high, but it all started to go wrong with news of extensive reshoots. Years later, Trank would describe the studio-mandated process to Polygon as akin to being "castrated," recalling, "You're standing there, and you're basically watching producers blocking out scenes, five minutes ahead of when you get there, having [editors hired] by the studio deciding the sequence of shots that are going to construct whatever is going on." He decided to kneecap his own film, tweeting and deleting the night before release, "A year ago I had a fantastic version of this. And it would've received great reviews. You'll probably never see it."

Predictably, the film failed to find its audience. Critics weren't kind, either; unlike the hypothetical version of the film Trank claimed to have delivered, the actual movie currently sits at a disappointing 9% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the movie lost upwards of $100 million.

In 1982, Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" failed to light up the box office, thanks in part to Steven Spielberg's "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" still dominating theaters. The film, which starred Harrison Ford, was a gritty neo-noir about a bounty hunter chasing after synthetic humans, called Replicants; the story simply didn't resonate in the era where extra-terrestrials had lovable appetites for Reese's Pieces. However, the movie became a bit of a home-video marvel. Ultimately, seven different cuts of the film have been released, rescuing the film from obscurity and cementing it as a classic.

When it was announced that Denis Villeneuve would be directing a sequel, fans were excited. The new installment, titled "Blade Runner 2049," would pair returning star Ford with a young upstart in the form of Ryan Gosling. "I've never done something so shrouded in secrecy or where there's so much anticipation," Gosling told GQ almost a year before the film came out, claiming he was "cautiously optimistic" about the movie. Early reviews were rapturous sending anticipation into overdrive.

"Blade Runner 2049" won the weekend box office when it finally hit theaters, but the movie didn't come close to expectations. According to Entertainment Weekly, the film had been forecast to make as much as $55 million in its opening frame, but it pulled in a mere $31.5 million instead. The film's box office haul was so disappointing, in fact, that it led to layoffs at Alcon Entertainment, according to The Hollywood Reporter. More like Replican't. (Sorry.)